Quote from: RabidWookie;814891I'd like to read more about Franklin and Jefferson having people beaten up...

They also raped slaves, did opium, and made underhanded deals with the Bank of England which was funding both sides of the Revolution.

Straight-up colonial gangstas.

Quote from: TristramEvans;814892The original historical period was 7 years after the creation. In 1790 this was extended to 14 years with one renewel of an additional 14 years possible. In 1831 this was extended to 28 years with an option to renew. It was not until 1976 this was extended to 75 years or time of the creator's death + 50 years.
So the "historical period"  you're talking about is incredibly recent.

OK. All of them have a period beyond death of the creator. But that isn't where you started. The question then seems to be how long should that period be. I'm not strongly wedded to any one particular time period, but I would prefer a non-renewable time period greater than zero. Seven years seems very short. A longer period allows for financial benefit to provide for the spouse and any children or direct heirs. Fifty or seventy five years works for me as long as they are non-renewable.

QuoteThat really has no relevance to the point.

It never seemed to have any relevance to me. I only mention it because you brought it up as if it was relevant.

QuoteSo you're concerned about providing for creator's heirs, but you don't care if a creator is screwed by a business contract? I think you and I may have just reached a moral impasse.

I don't see how to protect creators from their own ignorance or foolishness. Your change only "helps" them in the sense that it bars everyone from transfering copyright whether or not that is in their best interests. Is your thought that sale and transfer is never in the creator's best interest? That's seems unintuitive so maybe you could explain why you think that is helpful to the creator.

QuoteOf course they can benefit. Licensing.

The license would terminate on expiry of the copyright. So there is no benefit after that. But if you are concerned that the creator cannot understand a transfer and assignment agreement (and thus will get screwed) why would you think they are going to understand a license agreement (so they don't get screwed). Either sort of agreement can be unfavorable to the creator.

QuoteYes. Or rather, I'd prefer that other, better writers had the opportunity to compete so the audience is not stuck with crap.

They can still compete, just not in the same space during the copyright period. Let them go create their own playground rather than squatting in someone else's creation during the copyright.

QuoteYour claim was that without the current system of financial gain, human beings wont create. I'm suggesting the drive to create is so inherently strong a part of human nature it transcends any financial concerns, forever.

No I am suggesting that if the financial return is below some individual threshold, some people will choose to or be forced by financial necessity to do something else with their time. I see that as a net loss to society. This loss is then compounded by your suggested changes to decrease the copyright period and to prevent the sale and transfer of the copyright to others which will necessarily decrease the value of the copyright and thus increase the number of people who are financially disencentivized.

QuoteI'm not interested in a system of trying to fix or do away with every possible motivation for murder ever. You're not advocating getting rid of money, and that motivates hundred of thousands of murders annually. Sex? How many murders does that motivate? Seriously its not even worth taking into consideration, really.

So you aren't concerned about the murder angle. OK.

How about you tell us what problem your suggestion is supposed to fix? And how that fix is supposed to provide a benefit to society commensurate with reducing the value of the copyright to the creator?

QuoteI believe Bria Hensen's Dune books illustrate it quite succinctly.

Because Bria Hensen is an argument I am unfamiliar with. Some explanation of the relevance would be nice.

Quote from: Bren;814883Financial provisions for one's progeny and heirs is a longstanding human tradition. Taking that into account seems entirely reasonable to me. Also 20 years doesn't allow much time for a sick or elderly writer to financial gain from their creation especially since you want to prevent them from selling the copyright. But at least now we are discussing some period beyond the creator's lifetime.

Except that the purpose of copyright in the United States is to

QuoteTo promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

It not about an inherent right to intellectual property for oneself and one's heirs.

The founding fathers were very leery of copyright and patents as they were used by the crowned heads of Europe as a means of control, favoritism and censorship. From reading their writing, I would guess they would gone on to make "for a limited time" more specific if they realized that a future congress would make the term life plus X years.

Ethically speaking I feel it is right to profit from one's creative works for a very limited time. For me 50 or so years sounds about right. Overly long copyright are wrong because we are all borrowing from our common culture. There are very few truly unique creations. It is only right that at some point what we create goes back into the common pool for other to benefits as the original author benefited.

A clear example is that of Disney's Snow White. An old folklore popularized by the Grimm Brother and in turn reworked and made even more popular by Walt Disney. It would have be fair that in 1993 (1937 + 56 years) that the film Snow White and the Seven Dwarf became public domain.

Also long copyright terms are detrimental to the preservation of less popular works. Society is unable to track the owners of a large percentage of copyrighted materials  after a few decades. This greatly hinders the ability of interested parties in preserving and maintain creative works on perishable material like old Jazz recording or early silent films. We already lost a quantity of work because of this issue. This problem would exist with a 50 year copyright but would be greatly mitigated.

It is a combination of the power of the moneyed interests that keeps the current system going along with fear mongering on their part that ropes in individual authors and artists into supporting their position of long term copyright.

Quote from: TristramEvans;814892Of course they can benefit. Licensing.

You're talking about an irrelevant distinction. If the creators of Superman had licensed their creation to DC Comics in perpetuity how would that have been any different than the work-for-hire contract they signed? The word "license" doesn't magically result in people not signing shitty deals.

QuoteYour claim was that without the current system of financial gain, human beings wont create.

I think your claim that creators will either create 0% of the things they could potentially create or 100% of the things they could potentially create is laughable.

My mother was a mystery author. Her first published novel took her 3 years to write. The sale of that novel made her enough money that she could quit the secretarial job she had been working. She was then able to produce an average of one novel per year for the rest of her life.

You take away her ability to earn a living from her writing and she would have kept writing (because she loved it). But she would have written literally a fraction of the work that she ended up producing.

And that's just for written works, which carry virtually no production costs beyond the labor of the creator. Most other forms of art require significant material costs (and you don't have to look too hard to find examples of artists struggling to create their work because they literally can't afford the raw materials). The modern era has also seen the advent of works of art that are only possible due to the mass-labor of hundreds or thousands of people. Those works are not possible unless profit can be made fro them.

Quote from: estar;814900It not about an inherent right to intellectual property for oneself and one's heirs.

Being able to provide for your heirs, however, is a motivation that will promote the creation of work.

QuoteEthically speaking I feel it is right to profit from one's creative works for a very limited time. For me 50 or so years sounds about right. Overly long copyright are wrong because we are all borrowing from our common culture. There are very few truly unique creations. It is only right that at some point what we create goes back into the common pool for other to benefits as the original author benefited.

I've come to the conclusion that the best solution would be a legally mandated right to create derivative works in the same way that there's a legally mandated right to record cover versions of songs. Say that, by default, you could create derivative works as long as you paid a 20% royalty on all revenues received from the derivative work. (You might couple this with an initial 10 year term of monopoly protection.)

I also think that a shorter term of protection makes sense. I used to advocate for life + 20 (the infant child of someone who created something popular shouldn't grow up in poverty because the creator happened to get hit by a bus; elderly authors should not become unpublishable because their publishers don't know if the book is likely to still be under copyright by the time it gets to market), but I'm fairly convinced that at some point in the next 200 years the term of "life" will probably become synonymous with "had an accident" and defining your length of legal protection for creative works on the basis of actuarial chance seems problematic.

Quote from: estar;814900Except that the purpose of copyright in the United States is to



It not about an inherent right to intellectual property for oneself and one's heirs.

The founding fathers were very leery of copyright and patents as they were used by the crowned heads of Europe as a means of control, favoritism and censorship. From reading their writing, I would guess they would gone on to make "for a limited time" more specific if they realized that a future congress would make the term life plus X years.

Ethically speaking I feel it is right to profit from one's creative works for a very limited time. For me 50 or so years sounds about right. Overly long copyright are wrong because we are all borrowing from our common culture. There are very few truly unique creations. It is only right that at some point what we create goes back into the common pool for other to benefits as the original author benefited.

A clear example is that of Disney's Snow White. An old folklore popularized by the Grimm Brother and in turn reworked and made even more popular by Walt Disney. It would have be fair that in 1993 (1937 + 56 years) that the film Snow White and the Seven Dwarf became public domain.

Also long copyright terms are detrimental to the preservation of less popular works. Society is unable to track the owners of a large percentage of copyrighted materials  after a few decades. This greatly hinders the ability of interested parties in preserving and maintain creative works on perishable material like old Jazz recording or early silent films. We already lost a quantity of work because of this issue. This problem would exist with a 50 year copyright but would be greatly mitigated.

It is a combination of the power of the moneyed interests that keeps the current system going along with fear mongering on their part that ropes in individual authors and artists into supporting their position of long term copyright.

Good points, Rob, and that's not even bringing up issues like purposely burying a rival's work or shelving D&D for a decade if 4e Essentials didn't revive "The Brand", which was supposedly where D&D was going until someone at Hasbro got fired or moved.

Unfortunately Disney's power will ensure that US Copyright length becomes near-perpetual, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership will allow companies to strangle international spread of IP.

Quote from: RabidWookie;814891I'd like to read more about Franklin and Jefferson having people beaten up...

I'd like to read more of WotC or other large game companies being reasonable about the targets of their C&D letters that Omega was talking about.

Quote from: estar;814900Except that the purpose of copyright in the United States is to

QuoteTo promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

It not about an inherent right to intellectual property for oneself and one's heirs.

I agree it does not say heirs and I don't believe I ever said the right was an inherent one. You will note however, that the passage you quoted does refer to securing the rights of creators, though the words used are "Authors and Inventors." Originally I brought up the issue of heirs because Tristram suggested that on the creator's death the copyright would expire. That would mean someone could finish creating something one day, die the next day, and then legally have no rights or title for their spouse, kids, and heirs. That seemed both immoral and socially unbeneficial. On the other hand, you are suggesting a flat time period from date of publication which treats the long lived and the short lived the same. So not the same concern as what Tristram originally proposed.
 

QuoteThe founding fathers were very leery of copyright and patents as they were used by the crowned heads of Europe as a means of control, favoritism and censorship. From reading their writing, I would guess they would gone on to make "for a limited time" more specific if they realized that a future congress would make the term life plus X years.

OK, but so what? There is no inerrancy about the thoughts of the founding fathers – the law being a living thing and all that. The question to my mind is what is most beneficial to society - i.e. what is enough time for the creator to benefit without preventing the public at large from access for too long a time period.

QuoteEthically speaking I feel it is right to profit from one's creative works for a very limited time.

Yes. That is what I have clearly said I believed as well. Now the point under discussion is how long is enough time, but not too much time.

Disney can keep their copies of the film in a vault somewhere if the managers and shareholders want to, but I agree that Disney has mickey moused with the law in what seems like a clear violation of both the intent and of a reasonable limit to their copyright term. The original versions of Snow White, Mickey Mouse, etc. should be in the public domain.

QuoteIt is a combination of the power of the moneyed interests that keeps the current system going along with fear mongering on their part that ropes in individual authors and artists into supporting their position of long term copyright.

I don't disagree. But I don't see the author's death as particularly useful date to use, but that is what was proposed and that is what I reacted to.

As a matter of ethics, it seems a bit disrespectful to muck about without permission with the creation of a living author while they are...living. However before anyone gets in a snit about my ethics, I'm aware that ethics and legalities are not identical.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;814907Being able to provide for your heirs, however, is a motivation that will promote the creation of work.

I thought that would be obvious without having to spell it out, but mabye not and probably better to spell it out in any case.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;814907I also think that a shorter term of protection makes sense. I used to advocate for life + 20 (the infant child of someone who created something popular shouldn't grow up in poverty because the creator happened to get hit by a bus; elderly authors should not become unpublishable because their publishers don't know if the book is likely to still be under copyright by the time it gets to market), but I'm fairly convinced that at some point in the next 200 years the term of "life" will probably become synonymous with "had an accident" and defining your length of legal protection for creative works on the basis of actuarial chance seems problematic.

Yeah, I had the increasing fuzziness of "life" and "death" (along with Walt's head being cryogenically frozen and maybe thawed out later) in the back of my mind. But at the time I was more concerned with questioning a change to the status quo than with speculating on what a better time period would be. A set term makes it easier to calculate when the copyright ends and certainty almost always beats uncertainty from a business standpoint. Not sure about the derivative works bit. I can see where someone mucking about making bad derivatives could, despite the financial payoff, piss off some creators to the point that the potential for derivatives becomes a barrier to timely publication. Emily Dickison probably wouldn't have needed more reasons not to publish her work.

Quote from: estar;814900Ethically speaking I feel it is right to profit from one's creative works for a very limited time. For me 50 or so years sounds about right. Overly long copyright are wrong because we are all borrowing from our common culture. There are very few truly unique creations. It is only right that at some point what we create goes back into the common pool for other to benefits as the original author benefited.

A clear example is that of Disney's Snow White. An old folklore popularized by the Grimm Brother and in turn reworked and made even more popular by Walt Disney. It would have be fair that in 1993 (1937 + 56 years) that the film Snow White and the Seven Dwarf became public domain.

I agree that exclusive control by heirs over a century after publication is crazy, especially that the extensions keep happening.

For example, I think that making a movie based on Kipling's "The Jungle Book" (1894) in 1967 was ethical. Note that this was legally in the public domain in 1967 when Disney released their film, but if we applied today's copyright law, Kipling's heirs would have had full control of the rights until 2006. As another example, under current law, the song "Happy Birthday" (1935) will remain under copyright (currently held by Warner Music) until 2030. I feel that this is overly long. The song has already passed deeply into popular culture, and ought to be in the public domain where people can perform it freely and make derivative works from it.

In general, I would say that:

1) I approve of the 20th century shift in copyright that broadened it from its original conception of exact copy of a book to include things like copyright of characters and other creative details. This allows for things like blocking look-alikes and derivative works.

2) However, with this broadening, I think that the period needs to be drastically shortened. While there is little call to publish an unlicensed exact copy of someone's work, there is a huge amount of creativity in working with pre-existing characters and other ideas. Under current copyright law, Shakespeare would almost certainly have been sued into oblivion for infringement, yet I think his works were highly valuable and creative.

3) With broadened copyright, I think the term should be similar to patent law of a strictly limited term from the time of first publication.

4) Fifty years or even thirty years is plenty of time to see profit from a work, and give suitable reward to motivate people to create. Arguments for copyright past that usually picture the creative work as inalienably owned property that logically should never be taken away.

It is obvious there is a group of posters on this thread who are interested in the legal forms and details surrounding this subject. What do you folks make of the now common practice of publishing clones of other people's games? As far as I understand it, it is perfectly legal for me to re-write some edition of D&D, changing little or nothing of the substance of the game, and republish it for profit under some new name. Do you consider this ethical? If it is legal, should it be?

Quote from: Larsdangly;814916It is obvious there is a group of posters on this thread who are interested in the legal forms and details surrounding this subject. What do you folks make of the now common practice of publishing clones of other people's games? As far as I understand it, it is perfectly legal for me to re-write some edition of D&D, changing little or nothing of the substance of the game, and republish it for profit under some new name. Do you consider this ethical? If it is legal, should it be?

Oh you wicked person, everyone knows you can't copyright game mechanics so these people can do whatever they want, clearly.

Quote from: econobus;814918Oh you wicked person, everyone knows you can't copyright game mechanics so these people can do whatever they want, clearly.

But you CAN copyright the presentation of those mechanics. So, clones often turn numbers around, come up a streamlined way of approaching the same math, or ditching aspects for preferred "house rules" changing up the formula.

I personally like innovations vs. perfect copies but I don't think I'm the target demographic. :-)

I think that this sort of fiddling of details you refer to is an unintended negative consequence of the stupidity of the laws in this area. It is like sanctioning complete and unabashed plagarism in an english class, provided you shuffle and replace just enough words to wring all the music out of the original language. I'm not sure I understand why we do this to ourselves; as far as I can tell the only reason to put out retroclones with the serial numbers filed off is just to avoid the meddlesome hectoring from a few self-appointed guardians of legal correctness. Has anyone ever actually been sued for this stuff?

Quote from: Bren;814911Not sure about the derivative works bit. I can see where someone mucking about making bad derivatives could, despite the financial payoff, piss off some creators to the point that the potential for derivatives becomes a barrier to timely publication. Emily Dickison probably wouldn't have needed more reasons not to publish her work.

True. Which is why I could see it being coupled to a short term of exclusivity (10 years or 20 years or something in that ballpark). The idea is that you let J.K. Rowling finish her Harry Potter novels before allowing other people to play in her sandbox.

I am aware of authors who get upset at other people playing in their playground. (Alan Moore, for example.) Honestly, though, I don't particularly care about them.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;814938True. Which is why I could see it being coupled to a short term of exclusivity (10 years or 20 years or something in that ballpark). The idea is that you let J.K. Rowling finish her Harry Potter novels before allowing other people to play in her sandbox.

I am aware of authors who get upset at other people playing in their playground. (Alan Moore, for example.) Honestly, though, I don't particularly care about them.

If the exclusivity runs from the first book published rather than from the most recent, than 10 years seems too short.

Just picking an example off a long term series off the top of my head, Sue Grafton says she has an end in mine for her Kinsey Millhone series of detective novels ("A" is for Alibi, etc.) The series is planned to end with "Z" is for Zero in 2019. The first book, "A" is for Alibi was published in 1982. So that's 37 years from start to finish. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. She publishes a book every year or two so it's not like the IP is sitting idle.